Public Bill Committee

[Hywel Williams in the Chair]
Written evidence to be reported to the House
E 97 Department for Education [Clause 55]
E 98 Maidstone Grammar School for Girls
E 99 Department for Education and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [Clause 66]
E 100 CASCAiD Ltd
E 101 Department for Education and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [Clause 65]
E 102 Abbey Hill Primary and Nursery
E 103 Sarah and Ian Maynard Smith
E 104 National Bureau for Students with Disabilities
E 105 National Association of Hospital and Home Teaching
E 106 The Association of National Specialist Colleges
E 107 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [Clauses 70 and 71]
E 108 Department for Education [Clause 51(1D) and Clause 52]
E 109 Department for Education [Clause 52]
E 110 Department for Education [Clause 58]
E 111 British Humanist Association

Schedule 10

Establishment of new schools

Question (29 March) again proposed, That the schedule be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.

Nick Gibb: Welcome back to the Chair and the Committee proceedings, Mr. Williams. May I briefly refresh the Committee on where we had got to on schedule 10? The schedule introduces three changes, giving precedence to academies and free schools, streamlining the process for establishing those schools and enabling class consents. A number of Committee members took the opportunity to highlight the benefits of the academies programme. We discussed the benefits that greater school autonomy is proved to bring, and we agreed on the contribution to educational improvement that academies made under the previous Administration. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall highlighted the cross-party support that we have for the programme, including from his own party and the Opposition, and that was an important contribution to the debate.
The key change proposed in schedule 10 is driven by our efforts to increase the autonomy, innovation and choice that academies bring, and which are needed to create a world-class education system. This change is based on the evidence that we draw from the most improved education systems throughout the world: first, that schools thrive when they are given greater autonomy; secondly, that professionals should be freed from red tape and bureaucracy; and thirdly, that improving the quality of the teaching work force must be a core priority. That is what we set out in the White Paper and that is what the Bill seeks to implement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked me to reassure him that the Government’s proposals go far enough in removing the impediments in the system to greater autonomy for teachers and head teachers, and I believe that they do. I hope that my brief remarks this morning will convince him of that. I can reassure him that the Government share his objectives and are committed to achieving them.
Schedule 10 does not remove the local authority from the system, rather it cements the change in their role from one of provider and maintainer to one of commissioner and champion of educational excellence. That is why the provisions require every local authority, in carrying out its planning function, to consider before all other options how they might set up an autonomous school, whether it be a free school or an academy.
However, we accept that we cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach, so the new process will still allow a local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to hold a competition and invite bids for other types of school. In the event that a competition does not realise any bids or any suitable bids, the local authority will be able to move straight to publishing its own proposals for a community or foundation school and will not need the consent of the Secretary of State to do so.
Schedule 10 also proposes changes to streamline the new schools process in cases where a new academy or free school is established. The time scale to do so will be markedly shorter than the current competition process. In practice, we expect the new competition process to be used only rarely, because we want local authorities actively to commission academy or free school solutions.
Finally, I come to what are, effectively, class consents for certain types of new maintained provision. Schedule 10 provides that the Secretary of State’s consent will no longer be required to publish proposals for certain types of new schools outside the competition arrangements. Removing this requirement will reduce the length of the process for establishing a new school by at least six weeks, making a significant contribution to reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for both the proposer and the Department. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will agree to the schedule.

Kevin Brennan: We will not seek to press schedule 10 to a Division, but the concern about the Government’s approach is that it takes options away from local communities in relation to the types of schools that they want to set up. The Government say that this is about choice, but in this instance they want to close down choice for local communities.
The Minister referred to cross-party consensus. I am not sure that he entirely reflected accurately the views of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who in his heart of hearts opposes academies, as does his party conference, but that does not matter when it comes to voting in the Committee, so he will be supporting the Minister. However, in the interests of making progress, I will sit down.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 1 March be amended as follows—
(a) in paragraph (l)(k) leave out ‘10.30 am and 4.00 pm' and insert ‘9.00 am and 1.30 pm';
(b) in paragraph (4) leave out ‘7.00 pm' and insert ‘6.00 pm'.—(James Duddridge.)

Clause 37

Constitution of governing bodies: maintained schools in England

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment 158, in clause37,page33,line37,at end insert—
‘(ba) persons appointed as local authority governors;’.

Hywel Williams: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 159, in clause37,page33, line37,at end insert—
‘(ba) persons elected as staff governors;’.
Amendment 160, in clause37,page33,line37,at end insert—
‘(ba) persons appointed to be community governors;’.
Amendment 161, in clause37,page34,line4,at end insert—
‘(1B) The Secretary of State, in prescribing regulations, must require the existing elected and appointed governors to consider the need for all groups which contribute to the school community to be either elected or appointed to the school governing body.’.
Amendment 162, in clause37,page34,line4,at end insert—
‘(1B) The Secretary of State, in prescribing regulations, must require the existing elected and appointed governors to consider the need for the diversity of the school community to be reflected in the persons elected or appointed to the school governing body.’.

Iain Wright: Good morning, Mr. Williams, and welcome to the Committee. The amendments seek to retain the requirement of representation on the governing body of the local authority, school staff and the local community. The Schools Minister may recall that we had good debate about school governance in Westminster Hall in February, when I said that the Bill did not recognise the important role that governors play in the effective running of a school, and I have not changed my mind since then. When a school has good, effective and challenging governance, educational attainment rises. Where there is unsatisfactory governance, or where there is a poor relationship between the governing body and the head teacher, pupil potential goes unfulfilled. I worry that the Bill fails to take that into account, and I hope that I will be able to deal with that in the clause stand part debate.
Clause 37 provides for a governing body of a maintained school in England and Wales to consist of only
“persons elected or appointed as parent governors…the head teacher of the school…and…such other persons as may be prescribed.”
There is additional provision for foundation schools, foundation special schools and voluntary schools. Despite the valued contributions made by parents and head teachers to governing bodies, it is important to question what we, and, more importantly, schools, children and young people, gain as a result of deleting the requirement for governors from the local education authority, school staff and the community. To do so, it is important to consider the vital role that a school governing body plays. It helps to set targets and the ethos of the strategic direction of a school, it helps the school to respond to the needs of parents and the wider community, it makes the school more accountable to a wider range of stakeholders, and it helps to develop policies and keep school performance under review.
I fully accept that parent governors have a vital role to play in all those purposes, but it also follows that by having people from a variety of areas—an important point that we touched on in the Westminster Hall debate—essential skills will be available, such as finance, personnel and marketing strategies, which might not necessarily be provided within the body of the parent governors, and which will increase the governing body’s effectiveness.
For example, how can the school respond to the needs of the community if there is no person on the body who represents the community? Although it would be possible to carry out policy making and review and ensure that the school is held accountable with only parent governors and head teachers, surely a local authority governor would assist in this task? That would provide the link to the local authority, which would provide input and additional information to the governing body. The skills that local authority governors can provide in terms of the operation of committees, complaints handling and finance can be invaluable to the governing body, and that is something that governing bodies would want to continue to have.
As the Local Government Association points out:
“Councils do not want to control school governing bodies. However, the LEA governor role provides a link”
to the local authority, allowing
“them to spot early warning signals of failure and offer support”.
In that context, can the Minister consider amendments 158 to 161, with a view to retaining the existing requirements for school governing bodies?
Also, and this is at the heart of the amendments, what added value does the clause provide? What do schools gain that they currently cannot do? As I mentioned in the Westminster Hall debate, I strongly think that school governing bodies ought to have the flexibility in the composition of governing bodies that they already have. How will the clause add value?
Amendment 162 seeks to require that a governing body considers the diversity of the school community when appointing or searching for new governors. I have already touched on the contention that the more diverse a governing body and the more experience, knowledge and skill available to it, the more effective the body can be, to the benefit of the school and its pupils.
Not only does a governing body need a variety of stakeholders in the school with different interests and experiences, it also needs to consider whether the people appointed reflect the school community, the parents and, importantly, the pupils attending the school. Again, we come back to the role of the governing body and to ensuring that it can respond to the needs of parents and the community, helping to develop policies and to plan for the school’s future. It is important that the roles carried out by the governing body are undertaken by people who understand that wider school community.
Therefore I ask the Minister to consider amendment 162 with a view to requiring that a governing body considers the diversity important in a school community when appointing new governors. That will increase the effectiveness of the role of the governing body and of the decisions made by the body on behalf of the school community.

Meg Munn: I wish to make a brief contribution in support of amendments 161 and 162 in particular, and to put the case for schools to consider having children and young people on the governing body.
The idea is not new—I think the first time I stood for election was for a school governing body, at a time probably before some Committee members were even at school. So the idea is not radical or new, but it can make a contribution. We have already, rightly, seen the growth of school councils. When I was first elected, I encouraged school councils, from primary school onwards. We know that a lot of young people do not get involved in the democratic processes. Giving them the opportunity to contribute from an early age through school councils and, subsequently—at secondary-school level certainly—through consideration of pupil governors would be a positive message for this Government to give to young people.
Clearly, it would not be appropriate for young people to be involved in all matters discussed by a governing body—those relating to staff come to mind. However, the principle ought to be there, and it would help young people to feel that they were being listened to and, alongside other mechanisms, it would fulfil our responsibilities under the UN convention on the rights of the child. Therefore, I hope that the Government will send out a positive message about that particular aspect of the amendments.

Dan Rogerson: In all the other clauses discussed thus far, we have been talking about the emerging relationship between local authorities and a growing number of academies, but also about the roles throughout schools. The trend has been for schools to get greater freedom, which I welcome, but it is important to retain some links.
As indicated by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, many of us in Committee have probably served as school governors or have some connection with governing bodies. Early on in my local government career, I certainly did so, and found the experience valuable. Hopefully, I was able to bring something to the school as well.
I accept that in some cases local government appointments are not filled, with some local authorities being better than others. Some hand the matter over to political parties—I have seen that happen in some areas— and say, “That is a school that you have responsibility for. It is in your part of the borough, so you find a governor for it.” There then is not much of a relationship between the governor, once appointed, and the local authority or elected councillors, except perhaps where the person is a local councillor, in which case the relationship is stronger. The role of the local authority governor could certainly be examined, but there are important reasons for maintaining that link. I hope that the Minister will look again at their role and see how we can reflect the evolving relationship that he was describing in the debate on schedule 10 between local authorities and schools.
My party has for a long time, going back to the Grimond era—without wishing to bore the Committee greatly—been talking about employee involvement in managing and running organisations. For that reason, I think there is an important role for staff governors. I do not think that that would replicate the role that trade unions will play in negotiations and in representing staff. As we have schools that are looking to themselves as a community to see how they can improve themselves constantly, it is important that staff are taken forward as part of that vision, that they have a voice in setting it out and that it can be communicated through a staff governor back to them.
I accept that the clause will not in any way ban local government or staff governors, and that schools may opt to use them, but in removing them, if there is a strong head teacher who has a close relationship with the chair of governors, there may be insufficient challenge, particularly if the chair is in the position to lead the co-option of other governors into the governing body. In most cases, as we have said, we are hugely trusting of head teachers and governors for the job that they do, but there is a reason to look at the issue again. I hope that the Minister is able to offer some more thought about how we can look again at the role of staff and local authority governors to ensure that there is a way forward for them as part of the school governing community.

Julie Hilling: I wish to pick up a few of the points that have already been picked up. A school is not an island, but part of a family of schools within its local area and part of its community. I therefore think that it is crucial that the community, in all its different guises, is represented on the governing body of a school. It is important that the school remains part of the family, which is why it is important for local authority governors to be part of school governing bodies. They are the channel between the local authority and the school and a way for the views of the community to be represented in the school body.
It is also important to have a staff rep. If we think about it, as a governor, a position that I am sure most of us in the room have been in, one is dependent on a head teacher’s report to the board of governors. One thing that a staff rep can do is bring in a different view of what is happening in the school. On one of my governing bodies, I appreciated having a teaching assistant as a representative, which again brought in a different view to the governing body of what was happening within the school regarding behaviour and activities to address that. Therefore it is important to ensure that there is a staff representative. We know the mantra of “Let’s trust the schools and professionals”, but we also need to trust other professionals, not just the head teacher, to ensure that their voice is heard and that governors get a full picture of what is happening in their school.
The previous Labour Government were very progressive when they introduced the possibility of pupil governors. I do not know what the take-up has been, although I suspect it has not been high if the response from my two schools was anything to go by. I lost the vote for pupil governors with one against the rest. In principle, however, it is important that young people are involved with decision making in the school and take responsibility. As my hon. Friend said, it is the logical conclusion of the school council for young people to be involved at the highest level in determining what goes on at the school, and to have their input and voices heard. Like all progressive actions, things can take a period of time to become embedded, but to get rid of pupil governors would be a regressive step. I know the Government like to think of themselves as progressive, so I hope they will think about pupil governors within school governing bodies.

Nick Gibb: I agree with the hon. Member for Hartlepool about the vital importance of governors and share his views 100%. I take the opportunity to commend the hard work and commitment that so many volunteers around the country give to holding our schools to account and helping to run them. Without governor volunteers, our schools could not operate properly.
Increased school autonomy places a premium on the quality of school leadership and governance. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, the context in which schools are operating is changing rapidly, and it is more critical now than ever before to strengthen governing bodies and make them more effective. The Government want to give governing bodies more freedom to recruit governors based on skills, in order to make them better able to hold head teachers to account and set a clear ethos and strategy for the operation of the school.
We want governing bodies to recruit the best people for the job, but at the moment, for some governing bodies the existing complex and prescriptive regulations about governing body constitution get in the way. The changes we introduce will be permissive and they will put decisions in the hands of governing bodies. We believe that individual governing bodies are best placed to determine what skills they need and how to source those skills, and it will be for each governing body to decide its own size and composition to meet the needs of the school.

Iain Wright: Does the Minister not think that that can happen now?

Nick Gibb: Only to an extent because regulations and the legislation prescribe the component parts of the governing body. Those skills can be sought, but that has to be done within the confines of the stakeholder model of the governing body.

Graham Stuart: We recognise that too many governing bodies might currently be described as soggy. They are better at the representative role, but less good at strategic direction and holding the school to account. Sharpening up governance so that the board acts as it would in a company and takes great responsibility for what is delivered in the school, is devoutly to be wished for. The situation is not satisfactory at the moment, and I hope that the Government’s proposals will allow it to be sharpened up in more schools across the land.

Nick Gibb: It is the prerogative of the Chair of the Education Committee to hold those views about our education system. As an independent person chairing an independent Committee, he is free to indulge in those inquiries and make those comments. That is his role and I am grateful to him for adding to the debate.

Graham Stuart: I should make it clear that it is a tremendously important area that the previous Education Committee did not look into. Labour Members are also members of the Committee, and we may wish to look at that area in the future.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that further intervention. It would be a worthwhile line of inquiry; it is an area that would benefit from some proper research. We strongly recommend that governing bodies carry out a skills audit to help them target their recruitment. If a governing body suffers from the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend, that could be a way of resolving those problems.
In making those changes, we will retain the requirement for governing bodies to include elected parent governors, the head teacher and, in foundation and voluntary schools, foundation governors. Parents have a high stake in the education of their children and the performance of the school as a whole, so it is to pupils and their parents that schools should primarily be accountable. Parent governors are an essential link between the school and parents. They can seek the unique perspective of parents as service users and represent them on the governing body. A head teacher is an ex officio member of their school’s governing body, and it is important to preserve their position as the school’s lead professional on that body. In foundation and voluntary schools, the foundation governors are appointed to secure the character of the school, including its religious character, where the school has one. They have to ensure that that character is preserved and developed, and that the school is conducted in accordance with the foundation’s governing documents or trust deed.

Dan Rogerson: The role of foundation governors that the Minister describes is crucial in those schools. Certainly, as we have seen in debates in the Catholic community about admissions to London schools, the relationship between the diocese and a school can be controversial, but at least it is a source of debate about the right way forward. It occurs to me, however, that if we lose the other categories mentioned in the clause from non-faith schools, we might not have such independent voices in schools and which should be there not to create splits but to stimulate debate.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He made interesting comments in his speech on this group of amendments, and I will come back to his contribution after I have examined the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
Amendment 158 seeks to reinstate the requirement to have local authority governors. At present, many local authorities appoint their governors on a political basis rather than appointing the best person for the position.

Iain Wright: That was not in the impact assessment for the White Paper. Where does the Minister derive his evidence from in reaching that conclusion?

Nick Gibb: Local authorities appoint people and, by their nature, they are political organisations, in which the policy direction is determined on a political basis.

Meg Munn: That is an outrageous statement. Having been a governor, my experience is that local authority governors are from a wide range of backgrounds. Local authorities generally have great difficulty encouraging people to get involved, because of the onerous tasks and the time required, and they are grateful to have anyone who takes an interest in schools. The statement that there is political bias on school governing bodies is outrageous, and the Minister should withdraw it.

Nick Gibb: I did not actually say that there is a party political basis. That may be the case in some local authorities. I remember my appointment to the governing body of a school—many years ago, when I was in my 20s—when another Tory had to be found in Tower Hamlets to create a balance.

Kevin Brennan: That must have been difficult.

Nick Gibb: It was, which was why I was chosen—and I made an amazing contribution to that governing body.

Stella Creasy: There is always a danger in politics of basing a policy entirely on one’s own experience, but as I have been both a community governor and a local authority governor, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the idea that there is not necessarily a correlation between appointments being made by political parties and governors not being up to the job. I know that all political parties try hard to find people who want to be a governor. There is an issue about helping governors understand the role, but that extends to those from all backgrounds and however they are appointed. We should focus on supporting governor training rather than be critical of political parties that want to ensure that a range of views is represented on governing bodies in schools.

Nick Gibb: Those are broad generalisations, and there are exceptions to all of them. Our concern is that local authorities are too often likely to struggle to ensure political balance in the appointment of governors to schools in their portfolio. That may not be the best approach to appointing a governor; it may be better to find somebody who is an accountant. In Tower Hamlets in the 1980s, they were very lucky and got both. The clause simply provides flexibility in the system to enable the local authority to appoint the most skilled person if a governing body so wishes.

Mark Hendrick: I am reluctant to enter into this discussion, but I feel the need to, having been a governor in the past, like many of my colleagues and Government Members. If there is no prescription, the head will effectively, through his control and knowledge of the school, appoint yes-men and women.

Nick Gibb: I have better faith in head teachers than the hon. Gentleman does. I am not convinced that that would be the case with a strong head who would welcome the challenge of an effective and skilled governing body that could bring to his school the skills that he perhaps does not have on his staff. The hon. Gentleman’s concern might apply in a minority of schools headed by a weak head teacher, but I suspect that such problems exist today in those same schools even with the current system.
Amendment 159 reinstates the requirement to have staff governors who are elected by members of the teaching and support staff. Research conducted into the role of teacher governors by Earley and Crease suggested that some staff governors were unsure about their role and whether they were responsible to the head teacher as a member of staff or a governing body. Some felt there were conflicts of loyalty in speaking out in the presence of a head teacher. This raises the question about the capacity of governing bodies to hold the head to account.
Again, even if a governing body decides not to have elected staff governors, it can appoint members of staff or invite them to attend and give input into meetings so that their expertise would not be lost to the governing body. However, such staff members would not have a vote in the meetings.

Julie Hilling: The Minister seems to be saying that, because some staff governors find it difficult to identify their role, we should therefore not have staff governors on governing bodies. Surely the issue is around training staff governors to ensure that they are clear about their role in the governing body. To say that we should get rid of them because some have difficulty defining the role makes no sense to me.

Nick Gibb: The point of the clause is driven by the desire to give governing bodies the flexibility to recruit the skills that they feel they need and not to be confined to the stakeholder model that requires them to have certain categories. It also happens to be the case that research shows that many staff governors are uncertain about where their duty of care lies. Is it to the staff body on the school? Is it to the head teacher, the governing bodies or the wider community? That conflict causes problems for some staff. But the clause does not prevent the governing body from appointing staff to the governing body if it so wishes. If certain members of staff have the skills that it wants, or if it wants to have staff representation on the governing body, it can still do so under the clause. The clause simply removes the prescription. That is what we are trying to get rid of.

Iain Wright: If there is confusion on the part of staff governors about their role and loyalty, whatever that means, surely the logical conclusion is to provide additional governor training as opposed to repealing provisions on the statute book, which was the point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

Nick Gibb: It is too easy to say that all problems can be solved by training. Many volunteers are happy to have training so that they know the rules, but I think their attitude is: “Here is what I am. If you want these skills, abilities and experience, I’d be delighted to help and put in a lot of my time to help the governing body. Do not send me on a week’s residential training course to turn me into what you want me to be.” If we want to deter busy people from joining governing bodies, impose on them enormous requirements for training—
 Meg Munn  rose—
 Stella Creasy  rose—

Nick Gibb: I am spoilt for choice. I will start with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley

Meg Munn: The Minister is confusing the role of the governing body. The idea of having the prescription of certain people on the governing body is not to limit the flexibility of skills, but to ensure that all those involved in the community are represented. Will the Minister say, one way or the other, whether he thinks it is a good idea to have teachers on the governing body?

Nick Gibb: It is not for me to say, that is the point. The difference between this Administration and the previous one is that we do not want to have the centre in Whitehall determining every dot and comma of how a school should be run or the composition of its governing body or how those governing bodies should be run. We want to give schools and their governing bodies the flexibility to decide how they want their governing body to be constituted. They will be required to have parent representatives, but they can still have staff and local authority governors. They need to decide that for themselves, however, rather than have a Minister telling them.

Stephen McPartland: Does the Minister agree that the purpose of the clause is to provide governing bodies with the flexibility to recruit those individuals in the community who have the skills to drive through the requirements that the school needs? Part of those requirements and skills is to challenge the head teacher. Many staff governors would feel it inappropriate and personally difficult, in my experience and that of my family, to sit there and effectively challenge their employer.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend puts it well. That is absolutely right. It is about getting those skills and giving the governing body flexibility. That combination will lead to greater challenge of our head teachers, rather than less.

Richard Fuller: Does the argument here not go to the absolute difference between Opposition Members and Government Members? Opposition Members want to prescribe what head teachers do, while the Government want flexibility. Does the Minister agree that head teachers up and down the country will be shocked and appalled that the Opposition do not trust them to sort out their own governing body?

Nick Gibb: I was slightly taken aback by the notion that head teachers would appoint yes men to their committee. That is not an accurate reflection of the professionalism of the head teachers we have in this country.

Stella Creasy: I genuinely caution the Minister to think again about this. The other way to look at this concerns the right to representation on a school governing body. It is important to have representation from a wide range of sources in a governing body. I also draw the Minister’s attention to a concept called groupthink. As a psychologist, I want him to look at it. When there are not differing perspectives, or the challenge that comes from having different experiences and people in an organisation, there is a danger that the decision making is damaged as a result. The stakeholder model ensures that a wide range of experiences are brought on to a governing body. It is dangerous for the Minister to dismiss that. I hope, when he reflects on what he has said today, that he will think again about being so cavalier about those who volunteer to be governors in this country, and the range of experiences and ideas that they bring. To think that that is a problem rather than a benefit is a dangerous path to go along.

Nick Gibb: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making. In the hundred of thousands of volunteer governors around the country, we have a huge array of high quality people, with valuable skills that are used by the governing body. This clause seeks to extend that one stage further, so that if a governing body is having problems recruiting the skills it needs, and feels confined by the prescription in the current legislation, we will enable it to recruit the skills it needs. If it wants to continue with the representatives from local authorities, staff and so on, there is nothing in the clause to prevent that.

Graham Stuart: I was a former chairman of governors of a school that was in special measures, which we had to turn round. Getting a governing body that can provide the strategic input and challenge to the head and the school was the most important thing. Too often, we have governing bodies where the chairman of governors and the head have this vast representative number of people turning up, but they are unable to provide the skill set and challenge that is required. The most important training will be of chairmen of governors, which I know is part of the Government’s plans. We need chairmen of governors to take strategic control of and responsibility for their governing body, so as to challenge the head teacher more effectively and deliver higher standards within the school.

Nick Gibb: I fully agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said, as he will be unsurprised to hear.

Mark Durkan: I was struck by the intervention by the hon. Member for Bedford in which, in a very over-the-top way, he differentiated between one side of the Committee and the other. Obviously he cannot pass it up without going over it. He differentiated between one side of the Committee and the other on the basis that one side wants to prescribe and the other does not. Let us remember that clause 37(2), which inserts subsection (1A) to section 19 of the Education Act 2002, says:
“Regulations must provide for a governing body of a maintained school in England to consist of”,
and subsection (1A)(d) to section 19 of the 2002 Act says that a governing body must also consist of
“such other persons as may be prescribed.”
Who will do the prescribing?

Nick Gibb: Not me. The intention is not to be prescriptive. The intention is to be flexible.

Pat Glass: Does the Minister not see the irony in giving teachers the powers to search a young person of the opposite sex without a witness and yet saying, “They are not capable of serving on governing bodies and challenging head teachers”? There is a complete irony there.

Nick Gibb: Again, the hon. Lady seems to have misunderstood the clause, or she has deliberately misunderstood it. Under the clause, staff can be governors on governing bodies, but we want to give governing bodies—I sound like an over-wound gramophone—the flexibility to decide things.
This debate has become slightly more polarised than it needs to be, because there is huge sympathy on the Government side for the intention of these amendments to require governing bodies to consider whether their composition should reflect all of the stakeholder groups with an interest in the school and the diversity of the school community.
If governing bodies choose to reconstitute themselves as a result of the Bill, we would want them to consider carefully before they do so. Amendment 161 refers to the stakeholder model and amendment 162 refers to
“the diversity of the school community”.
I acknowledge that both of those factors are very relevant considerations. However, I am cautious about prescribing centrally the basis on which governing bodies should appoint people.
The key issue is recruiting governors with the right skills for the individual school and governing body. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward by members of the Committee today about the skills and experience that local authority and staff governors can bring. In response to those arguments, I will consider further, including in drawing up the relevant regulations, how we can ensure that governing bodies that wish to move away from the stakeholder model give due consideration to the need to retain the particular skills that come with being a local authority governor. On the basis of that concession, I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.

Hywel Williams: Order. We have had a wide debate on these amendments but also, to an extent, on the clause itself, so I am minded not to have a stand part debate.

Iain Wright: We have had an interesting debate. The Minister himself has acknowledged that opinions within the Committee have been polarised. It did not need to be like that. Frankly, it was as a result of his comments that we have polarised views on this matter.
Members of the Committee could be forgiven for thinking that the current legislation requires governing bodies and head teachers to have quotas with regard to several different stakeholders, for example that there should be two representatives from the local authority and 3.76 representatives from a particular community. That is far from being the case. I have tabled the amendments because my main contention is that we already have flexibility. Governing bodies can have the necessary range to get the required skills and strategic vision, so I agree with the point made by the Chair of the Education Committee.
I find it astonishing that the Minister has drawn such a conclusion on local authority governors, given his experience, imagination, creativity and style. His conclusion is based on no evidence whatever and, if I may say, a degree of personal prejudice. That is not the way to shape policy. The hon. Member for North Cornwall and other hon. Members were right to say that local authority governors can provide the degree of perspective and challenge that is essential in a governing body. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.
I think that the Minister has said there is no real need to have staff governors and that doing so could be a negative measure, because staff might have a conflict of loyalty, which could dissuade them from speaking out against the head teacher. That goes to the fundamental point not only about the clause, but the feelings and principles inherent in many provisions of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: Those are not my views; my view is that we should give governing bodies flexibility. Those views came out of the research that asked questions to serving staff governors.

Iain Wright: I understand that, but let me come to the point that I was about to make—[Hon. Members: “Moving on.”] Moving on, with a firm grip of evidence-based policy, to the role of the head teacher in the provision. It is quite right that head teachers provide leadership. We have seen fantastic leadership from head teachers, which has improved over a number of years. In any organisation, however, it is very important to have that mix and blend, which is difficult to define, of support and challenge that a governing body can provide. Governance is important in ensuring that a head teacher’s views are challenged and scrutinised effectively.
Judging by what the Minister has suggested, he thinks that it is wrong for a head teacher to be challenged. He seems to suggest that the head teacher will do no wrong. He wants to repeal existing provisions on the statute book to ensure that dissent, from the head teacher’s viewpoint, is minimised in the school as much as possible. That is not appropriate and we will not ensure appropriate life chances for children and young people if he takes such a view.
I am pleased that the Minister has taken a view at all, because he has said that, as the representative in Whitehall, he is not allowed to have a view on anything about schools policy. In a telling response to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, he said that he does not want to think about what
“such other persons as may be prescribed”
might mean.
I did not plan to divide the Committee on this matter, but as a result of our discussion and the polarisation that the Minister identified, which largely results from his comments, I should like to test its opinion. I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will support us, given his comments on local authority governors. The Minister has not convinced me; if anything, he has made the situation much worse.

Dan Rogerson: I thank the Minister for his comments in that more lively debate about our respective positions, which has woken us all up on a Thursday morning. As I said in a previous debate, there are different views between the parties—sometimes on the Government side of Committee. All parties are determined, however, to get the provision right and to ensure the freedoms for schools that we have discussed. I absolutely support everything that the Government are trying to do to show that we trust head teachers to get on with doing the job of running their schools. In this instance, it is even more important that the supporting body around the head teacher looks at some of the strategic overview issues, but not at operational and management issues, which the head teacher must drive. It is crucial that we get it right, so I welcome the Minister’s comments that he will look again at how to reflect the important role of local authority governors.

Kevin Brennan: Given that the hon. Gentleman has obviously had a conversation with the Minister on the matter, does he think it would be appropriate for him to table his amendment on Report to take the concerns on board?

Dan Rogerson: I think the Government may use several mechanisms to explore the issue, be it through future stages of the Bill or regulation. What is important for me is to hear that the Minister has taken on board the comments of the Committee, where some strong views have been expressed. At the core of the matter, as the Minister was saying, we can come down to a view that in the vast majority of schools, there will be a set-up that works, and that we will have an opportunity to examine it. I think the Chair of the Education Committee has said that that Committee might undertake that piece of work in future, from which we may learn lessons.

Iain Wright: The Minister has listened to the heated comments and polarised views in Committee this morning. The concession was well won by the Committee and the Minister has shown miraculous foresight in having the concession typed out, which indicates that he has had access to a word processor even as the Committee speaks. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view on that?

Dan Rogerson: The Minister is a man of many talents. The foresight that he shows on such occasions is perhaps uncanny. I welcome the opportunity that we have had to explore the matter this morning. I welcome the Minister’s comments, and I look forward to seeing the proposals that presents at the appropriate stage to resolve some of our debates this morning.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Iain Wright: I promise to be brief. I just wanted to ask several questions about the clause, which provides for the dissolution of the governing body of a maintained school on its discontinuance. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s purpose and reasoning behind the clause? Is it to enable one school in a federation to become an academy without breaking the partnership working between the remaining schools in the federation? Given that the clause will enable a school to close or convert to an academy without first having to undertake a statutory procedure to leave the federation, will he explain the process that will be put in place to allow that to happen?
In light of the fact that the federated governing body will not be dissolved when a single school—or more—leaves the federation, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact that a single school or more leaving a federated governing body will have on the remaining schools and governing body in the organisation or entity? It will be useful if he can respond.

Nick Gibb: The Government want to give all schools the opportunity to enjoy the greater autonomy and proven educational benefit that academy status brings. Schools in a federation can already convert jointly, provided that one of the schools is outstanding or has outstanding features. Currently, if one or more—but not all the schools in the federation—wish to convert to academy status, that cannot happen unless a majority of the entire federated governing body agree to it. The converting school or schools must also first go through an additional statutory process to leave the federation as the hon. Member for Hartlepool highlighted.
The provisions are intended to make it easier for a federated school to convert to academy status even when others in the federation do not wish to do so, without breaking up the effective partnership that exists in the federation, as the hon. Gentleman says. Clause 55 makes the key changes to bring that about, and I am sure that members of the Committee will want to scrutinise the Government’s policy in such matters when we reach that part of the Bill. That is where all the details to which the hon. Gentleman referred appear.
Clause 38 makes, in effect, a consequential amendment by providing for what happens to the governing body of a federation, if one or more schools—but not all of them—choose to become academies. It amends the Education Act 2002 to stop the dissolution of a federated governing body in such circumstances. It has been grouped with the other governing body clauses, but the meat of the provision is under clause 55 so, with the hon. Gentleman’s patience, I hope that we can scrutinise it in more detail when we reach that part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 164, in clause39,page34,line32,at end insert—
‘(4C) However, the regulations must provide that if the local authority requests that a school be inspected by the Chief Inspector under any provision, the Chief Inspector must comply.
(4D) In any event, the local authority must request an inspection if a petition supported by 25 per cent. of the parents of registered pupils requests an inspection.’.

Hywel Williams: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 167, in clause41,page36,line23,at end insert—
‘(1C) However, the regulations must provide that if the local authority requests that a college be inspected by the Chief Inspector under any provision, the Chief Inspector must comply.
(1D) In any event, the local authority must request an inspection if a petition supported by 25 per cent. of the registered students requests an inspection.’.

Kevin Brennan: Diolch yn fawr and bore da—good morning and thank you, Mr Williams. Taking seriously what the Minister said—that schools are here primarily to serve parents and students—amendments 164 and 167 are to test whether the Government are really serious about giving them a bit of power. They would enable exempt schools to be inspected if such an inspection were triggered by parents in the case of schools, or by students in respect of further education colleges.
Under the clause, once a school is exempt from inspection, it is not clear how issues at the school can be identified, particularly if it has one of the Minister’s group-think boards of governors that has decided everything in the garden is rosy and that the head teacher is the best head teacher in the world because he has said as much at all the governing body meetings and there is no one from the staff, the community, local authority or other source to challenge that assertion. The head teacher is at the school with his hand-picked, group-think governing body and is so wonderful because the school is already exempt.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Brennan: In a moment. I am just warming up. As the head teacher is exempt from inspection, it is thought that he must be marvellous. Everything is rosy, nothing could go wrong, yet underneath there might be a seething body of parental discontent, which does not happen on that occasion to be represented by the parent governors.

Graham Stuart: I do not want reheat the previous debate, but the group-think assault goes against the purpose of the Bill, which is to create a more independent body. When I was a chairman of governors, we could bring in people with the precise skills to provide such a challenge. I am not saying necessarily that it should not be there but, too often, group-think happens now with people who work in the school. Local authority representatives dragged into the governing body too often go native and do not provide the skill set and the challenge. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should make out that the efforts are intended to enfeeble the independence of governing bodies—quite the opposite is true.

Kevin Brennan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right—

Graham Stuart: So do I.

Kevin Brennan: And he hopes he is right.
Many present have served on school governing bodies, but I recall being at a meeting when everyone was nodding at instead of resisting the head teacher who wanted to do to a member of staff something which was, frankly, in breach of employment law. I had to say, “You had better get the representative from the local authority in here next month and not make a decision now, because you’ll regret it if you do.” We need that.
I accept that we need strategic leadership—strong, well-trained chairs of governors, who are prepared to work strategically and positively with the head, but also to provide the challenge, of a kind required in any leadership role. Even Mrs Thatcher said that every Prime Minister needs a Willie, in relation to Willie Whitelaw, and every head teacher needs there to be some challenge from the chair of governors and, indeed, the set of governors. Another joke by Mrs Thatcher was when she was ordering dinner and was asked, “What about the vegetables?” She replied, “They’ll have what I’m having.” We must not have that kind of situation with a board of governors, even if we do in the Cabinet.
We are concerned about that, and the issue was raised by the cabinet member on Westminster council when she wrote to me about the need for challenge, even if the rest of the Westminster council leadership were not in agreement. We have to watch out.
The amendments would enable parents and, as I said earlier, in the case of colleges, students to demand an inspection through the local authority, where a school or college is exempt. The amendments would put power into the hands of parents to trigger an inspection at their child’s school if they had concerns.
On Second Reading of the Academies Bill, the Secretary of State said last July:
“‘The best local authorities already increasingly see their primary role as championing parents and pupils rather than being a direct provider of education. We need to see every local authority moving from provider to commissioner, so that the system acquires a local dynamism responsive to the needs of their communities and open to change and new forms of school provision. This will liberate local authorities from too often feeling the need to defend the status quo, so that instead they become the champions of innovation and diversity, and the partner of local parents in driving continuous improvement.’”—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 30.]
We tabled the amendments in the spirit of ensuring that, if we are to make schools exempt from inspection, there is a safety valve in the case of a real issue in the school, which is not being or cannot be expressed through the governing body. From what the Minister has said, that body is being reformed in a way that might—it might not—take out some of the voices which otherwise, previously, would have been heard. Our proposals would give the parents some power to hold the school and head teacher to account if things were going wrong.
Recently, in my constituency, I had a school where things went wrong through the appointment of a head teacher. For whatever reasons, it all went horribly wrong. The situation dragged on for far too long. Parents were seething about it and coming to see me, and I thought that they ought to have the power, if necessary, to get an inspection of the school, because one was not due.
Where schools are exempt, such a provision is particularly important. I ask the Minister to respond positively to the amendment. If he cannot accept it in Committee, will he give serious consideration to introducing such a mechanism if he exempts a school from inspection?

Nick Gibb: It is worth setting out the context first. Clauses 39 and 41 will bring about more proportionate and targeted approaches to school and college inspection. That will benefit more than 3,000 of the highest performers and enable Ofsted to target its resources to best effect. The freedom given to outstanding schools and colleges will bring with it a responsibility to continue to strive for excellence. Most will meet this challenge, but some will face difficulties, which is why the chief inspector will have the necessary powers to reinspect when, on the basis of risk, that is considered appropriate.
Amendments 164 and 167 would require Ofsted to inspect any school or college in response to a local authority request. They would also impose a duty on a local authority to request such an inspection if a specified proportion of parents, or students in the case of colleges, indicated through a petition that they wanted an inspection to take place. It is absolutely right that, where a local authority has concerns about a school or college and feels that these cannot be addressed through local intervention, that authority should be able to approach Ofsted to ask for an inspection—and it can under the current arrangements. Equally, if parents have concerns about the performance of their child’s school, they should be able to put those directly to Ofsted—again, this opportunity already exists, thanks to the arrangements introduced by the previous Labour Administration.
There are appropriate avenues in place for those who have concerns about their college. Indeed, in 2009-10, 2,000 parents wrote to Ofsted about their concerns, and although the vast majority of those related to individual points rather than whole-school issues and were redirected appropriately, a number of inspections were brought about as a result of those complaints.
The amendments, however, take a different approach. Under the proposals, the chief inspector would lose her discretion to determine when the nature of a complaint was such that it warranted an inspection, in circumstances where the numerical trigger is met. Under the amendments, the local authority would itself lose its discretion to respond to complaints, as it would be required to request an inspection on the basis of a petition trigger. If 25% of a parent body complained about a school, that would be a serious matter, and Ofsted would be likely to consider it as such, but is it really the best approach to require an inspection in such circumstances, regardless of the context and content of the complaints?
Under the current arrangements, Ofsted can inspect a school or college on the basis of a small number of complaints or even a single complaint that raises very significant concerns. Under the arrangements proposed through the amendments, the opposite would apply: large numbers of parents—or, in the case of colleges, students—complaining as a result of a campaign by a vocal few could result in Ofsted being forced to inspect, regardless of the seriousness of the issue. We do not believe that this is a proportionate approach, or indeed a fair one. Leaving aside whether a 25% quota is the right trigger, any system based on such a trigger is vulnerable to vexatious, malicious or serial campaigning. Such a risk is avoided in the current arrangements as a result of the chief inspector’s discretion.
I absolutely agree that there should be a route for parents, students and local authorities to seek an inspection of a school or college when there are serious concerns, and although I have some sympathy with the Opposition’s intention, I am not convinced that the proposals as drafted would be an improvement on the current arrangements.

Richard Fuller: I do not want to cause my hon. Friend any discomfort about this, but we have just talked about devolving authority down to head teachers for their governing body, and part of the coalition Government’s mission is to localise power and authority, so does he have concerns that, as we move that power down, the voice of parents will not be heard so clearly at the top of the inspectorate unless there is an opportunity, when a sizeable proportion of parents wish it, to ensure that that voice will be heard, rather than may be heard? I just wonder whether we are getting the balance right.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is right to raise that important point. He is reflecting the general direction of the Government’s education policy, which is to put more power in the hands of parents. That is being achieved through the governing body. There is still a requirement for there to be parent-governors on governing bodies, even with the clause we have just agreed to, but in addition to that, we want to give parents a genuine choice of school. That is what the whole academies and free schools movement has been about, and I know that he is a firm advocate of that in his constituency. It is what the accountability measures that we are introducing are all about. It is about the transparency agenda and ensuring that all the information that we have in the Department is available to parents, as well as to Ministers and civil servants. That is all about giving power to parents and, through parent power, forcing up standards in our schools.
In addition, there are current arrangements through which local authorities can ask Ofsted to consider an inspection. Even now, under existing arrangements, parents can trigger an inspection by complaining to Ofsted, but we are leaving it to the discretion of Ofsted to decide whether complaints from parents are worthy of triggering the quite expensive process of inspection. We are trying to avoid an over-prescriptive approach in which getting up to a certain target figure can trigger something that we would all know was not necessarily the right thing. It might be that 24% of parents are worried about the quality of a school and so it is important that Ofsted triggers an inspection. It might be that one parent writes in with a complaint about a school that actually reveals something very serious. I am aware of such cases, and I think that such an approach is right, rather than introducing automatic triggers.

Julie Hilling: If the Government do not accept these triggers, what will be the trigger for an inspection-exempted school? There is a school in my locality—we have all seen such schools—that was an outstanding school, but became a failing school over a relatively short period and is now closed. What will be the triggers for a school that was outstanding under Ofsted? How will we know if it has become a failing school? What is the trigger going to be?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady raises an important point. We have to have a trigger if we are exempting large numbers of outstanding schools in this country from routine inspection. There has to be a trigger at some point for a school to be reinspected, and the consultation document that went out recently with the new framework set out those triggers—for example, current attainment and progress. If there is a dip in the exam results of a school, that would be a trigger. Changes in pupil attendance would be a cause for concern and could trigger an inspection. Ofsted also conducts themed surveys that allow it to look at reading or science in a number of schools. If the findings of such a survey visit were to reveal problems, that could trigger an inspection. Of course, complaints from parents could also trigger an inspection.

Pat Glass: The Minister might be aware that the Education Committee heard evidence that a third of outstanding schools are inadequate at their next inspection. That might not be because of reduced standards—it could be because of all kinds of other things—but if a third of outstanding schools are inadequate at their next inspection and we are taking away the regular inspection of these schools, surely parents are right to play a role in raising issues.

Nick Gibb: My understanding is that almost two thirds of primary schools and more than two thirds of secondary schools that were previously judged as outstanding and were inspected more than once between September 2005 and the end of December 2010 maintained their outstanding rating, while more than 90% of such schools remained either outstanding or good. The fact that a school did not remain outstanding does not mean that it plummeted to being a school that would be worthy of special measures, so the hon. Lady is overstating her case.
If a school were to hurtle from outstanding towards special measures, it would be likely—almost certain—that one of the criteria in the consultation document that I cited would reveal something going seriously wrong. I do not believe that there would be no parental complaint throughout such a period, for example. It would be likely that attendance would have gone down, while attainment would almost certainly have gone down while the school was going from outstanding through to special measures or satisfactory.
I understand the concerns that hon. Members have raised but, on balance, I think they are outweighed by the benefits to the system of exempting outstanding schools from routine inspection. Given that the state sector always has limited resources, if we can focus those resources on schools that are struggling and not performing to the standard at which they should be, I think that is a good use of Ofsted’s resources. Taking into account all the safeguards in the consultation document, I think we have got this right, so I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff West to withdraw the amendment.

Kevin Brennan: Our probing of this matter has revealed some of the tensions and contradictions behind the Minister’s thinking. He wants to extend parental power, but somewhere buried in his psyche he has a vision of parents as vexatious complainers and people who behave inappropriately when they come to a school, swear at teachers and are not good parents. We know that a minority of parents do behave like that, and have the wrong attitude towards school and disciplining their children, but the Minister must not project that on to our consideration of the serious matter of exempting a large number of schools from regular inspection. A large number of parents in a school could hold genuine concerns to which that school did not listen. They may also write to Ofsted, but the amendment would give them real authority to ensure that the school was inspected and that their concerns were met.
The Minister said that two thirds of outstanding schools remained outstanding after reinspection, but that means that one third did not. He said that only 10% of schools did not achieve the level of good, but that means that one in 10 schools deemed outstanding were no longer deemed to be even good when they were reinspected. That proves that schools can go from being outstanding to being rated as less than good by Ofsted by the time of the next inspection. That applies to one in 10 schools, so a large number fall into that category.
The Minister seems to suggest that the amendment would take away Ofsted’s discretion to inspect schools, but it would not if the 25% trigger were met. He asked what would happen if 24% of a parent body complained but, as he knows, there would still be discretion in the system.

Graham Stuart: I am sorry that I was not present to hear all the hon. Gentleman’s words, so he might already have acknowledged my point. Recent inspections of outstanding schools, which affect the number that have changed rating, are based on a risk assessment. Unlike in the past, if 55% of schools—or 60% or whatever—have changed category, that does not mean that 55% of all outstanding schools have changed. It means that those schools where a trigger led to an intervention have been targeted, so it is impossible to have an overall sense of the change.

Kevin Brennan: I acknowledge that point and I am grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee for that clarification. As I said, however, we have revealed a tension in the Minister’s thinking. Some of the Bill’s measures put a lot of power into the hands of a small number of people, whether that is the Secretary of State or those involved in the running of a school. Other measures in the Bill take from parents the power to complain and to have complaints heard by an independent body. There is a reduction of parent power in the Bill, even though the Minister claims that there is an increase.
I will not press the amendments to a Division because I recognise that they may not be perfectly drafted to reflect what would work in practice. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on what has been said, including by Members from his party. As he creates exemptions for schools rather than relying on the current system, perhaps he will think of a way to enhance parents’ ability to call a school to account and trigger an inspection when sufficient numbers of concerns are expressed to show that the complaint is not vexatious. On that basis, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Kevin Brennan: A number of people are concerned about the proposal, so I ask the Minister to respond to these points briefly before the end of the sitting. The NUT told us that
“this proposal has serious implications for the future monitoring and development of schools.”
That point should be taken seriously.
Barnardo’s told us that some schools that are exempted from regular inspections, especially those that are outstanding, might have selective admissions practices or be excluding pupils who need extra support for their behaviour. It said that the proposal means that unfair practices may go unrecorded by any independent body, so I ask the Minister to respond to that point.
Save the Children told us:
“There must be mechanisms to monitor not just overall performance at exempt schools but also the progress and achievements of those from poor homes; so inspections can be triggered if there are dips in attainment or progress.”
Will the Minister also give us an assurance on that point?
The NUT said that although there will still be thematic inspection visits, the proportion of outstanding schools visited will be substantially lower than under existing arrangements, so inspectors will generally see less good practice and thus will be less able to disseminate that throughout the education system as a whole. How does the Minister intend that inspectors will remain adequately informed of best practice if they are not inspecting schools that follow best practice? The NUT also expressed concern that schools could now try to game the system—for example, by trying to trigger an inspection before a particularly difficult cohort of pupils came into the school. Has the Minister considered that point?
The criteria for exemption from inspection are not defined, so how exactly will exempt schools be defined? Will the clause apply to academies? NASUWT told us of its concern that it removes public scrutiny and accountability. It says that exempting schools from being accessible to inspection for six years could mean that the needs of a whole school generation of children and young people are neglected and outside public accountability and scrutiny. Will the Minister respond to those points?

Nick Gibb: I shall respond briefly to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The consultation document makes it clear that a proportion of outstanding schools will inevitably be inspected as a result of the risk assessment process. In addition, there is the thematic approach that Ofsted takes when it inspects a sample of schools across the country on a particular subject or theme. Some outstanding schools will fall within that inspection, so Ofsted will maintain its knowledge of high-performing schools.
The hon. Gentleman cited the comments from Save the Children. One of the Government’s main objectives is to close the attainment gap between children from poorer and wealthier backgrounds, which is a theme running through most of our education reforms. In particular, the introduction of the pupil premium is designed to ensure that schools are funded to take initiatives to help children from more challenging backgrounds. We will have an accountability measure for pupils who are in receipt of the pupil premium so that we can compare one school with another on the basis of the educational attainment of those children who qualify for the pupil premium. We are doing everything—more than was done before—to deal with the issue of children from poorer homes.
I think that I have dealt with all the hon. Gentleman’s concerns—

Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister deal with the point about exactly how exempt schools will be defined?

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. We have circulated to the Committee draft regulations that contain a definition of outstanding schools. I hope that the Committee will support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Duddridge.)

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.